And here's the critique on the critique:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html. Unfortunately this gets “too technical” for non-scientist, which becomes the problem. Our public school system has failed to teach a basic knowledge of evolution. The typical Christian is satisfied in not learning the details that shows that evolution is true, and rather holds onto some silly notion that there is a controversy in the scientific community. Therefore they think it is rational for them to deny evolution. Come on. If you are going to say evolution is wrong take the time to learn the subject. When you speak out of ignorance you look ignorant.

I won’t even go into how this creationist talk is a common stumbling block for both Christians who have fallen away from their faith and those investigating the faith.

1) I did not imply anywhere that someone could not be a Christian and believe in evolution. Scientists such as Francis Collins and John Polkinghorne are examples.

2) Evolution is limited in it's importance, in my mind. When Richard Dawkins asserts that "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist," he was and is wrong. Even if evolution could be demonstrated (meaning, from goo to the zoo to you) it would mean very little as it relates to God's existence. You still have not explained the origin of the universe (Why is there something rather than nothing?), fine-tuning of the universe, the existence of objective morality, the evidence of the resurrection of Christ, the source of the information (info comes from intelligence, no?) found in DNA, etc.

In summary, the process of macro-evolution is a philosophical assumption that even if proven true beyond a reasonable doubt would have little effect as it relates to the existence of God, Jesus Christ, etc. Evolution is but one discipline that tells us about a piece of the entire pie of life. For me, it is NOT a hill to die on.

3) You say: "The typical Christian is satisfied in not learning the details that shows that evolution is true"-

Sir, I have discussed various beliefs with various people (including evolutionists) and they are unable to explain to me what they believe and why they believe it. Does this have any bearer on whether or not what they believe is true? No; let's not start calling a group of people "ignorant" and just discuss the evidence. There are dumb Christians and dumb Atheists. There are smart atheists and smart Christians.

4) I believe in evolution; meaning, I believe in adaptation or microevolution. I do not believe, as many are beginning to admit, that mircro evolution equals macroevolution. Now, before you call me "ignorant" or "uninformed" please view my reasons for not accepting evolution on the macro level:

a) Fossil evidence Even if a finely graded series of fossils were found, so that there were fewer missing pieces in the progression, this would not prove evolution. Similarity and progress do not necessarily prove common ancestry; an alternative explanation is that they have a common Creator who designed them to live in similar environments. Genetics is the only way to prove linkage. Unfortunately, there is no way to reconstruct the genetic structure of bones uncovered. It is what is "under the hood," if you will, that matters. Fossils, again, only tell part of the grander story.

Also, let us consider things at the molecular level. This is where we would find the best available evidence for common ancestor or a common creator. What does the data tell us? Proteins are the building blocks of life. They are composed of long chains of chemical units called amino acids. Most proteins have in their structure more than 100 of these amino acids, which must be in a very specific order. It's the DNA that contains the instructions for ordering amino acids in the proteins, and the order is critical because any variation usually renders the protein dysfunctional. Herein lies the problem for the Darwinists: if all the species share a common ancestor, we should expect the find protein sequences that are transitional from, say, fish to amphibian, or from reptile to mammal. However, that's not what is found. There is found basic types that are molecularly isolated from one another. So even though all organisms share a common genetic code with varying degrees of closeness, that code has ordered the amino acids in proteins in such a way that the basic types are in molecular isolation from one another. We find no transitions. [1, Turek Geisler, "I Don't Have Enough Faith..."]

Hopefully this confirms that there is more to "transitional" forms.

b) Cambrian Explosion- The Cambrian Explosion (CE), also called the "Biological Big Bang" has caused immense problems for Darwinists. The CE is when a amazing array of new life forms suddenly appeared fully formed in the fossil record, without any of the ancestors required by Darwinism. A Creator explains this simply because this phenomenon would have required the sudden infusion of massive amounts of new genetic and other biological information that only could have come from an...dare I say it...an intelligent source. When one considers this fact from a biological standpoint, the best explanation is that an intelligence was responsible for this otherwise inexplicable phenomenon. With the CE's huge and sudden appearance of radically new body plans, one must admit that you need lots of new biological information. Information comes from intelligence. [2, Strobel, Case for the Creator]

5) I believe that we agree on more than you think. I too agree that the public schools have failed to teach a basic knowledge of evolution. I believe the student should be allowed to see the evidence, discuss the evidence,and even criticize the evidence. This is how objective thinkers are built and not dogma repeaters.

Finally, Mr. Lefers, please understand that I provided you with an article that gave a different point of view than the one you provided for Brian. I believe in considering ALL the evidence and following it wherever it may lead, even if that is God.

I'll end with a story:

I have a friend who holds a Master' Degree in Biological science and is steep in evolutionary thinking. He was an agnostic who believed in Darwin's classic theory of evolution. Upon my challenge to study out the claims of Christ and Intelligent Design (ID), he became a Christian. He admitted that he was bias and not opened to any other views. When he was willing to openly consider the evidence, it change him. He himself admits that macro-evolution is not proven and more of an assumption.

1) Come on. Christians like Collins and Polkinghorne are few. The vast majority of Christians do not believe in evolution. In my search for apologetic websites to help me address my Christian doubt, I have yet come across a site that doesn’t get evolution wrong. This site is a great example.

2) Some good questions here like how to explain the origin of the universe. But these are probably unanswerable in my lifetime. However I don’t see how this is evidence for the Christian God. Your comment about source of information found in DNA, I’ll just point you to looking up how mutations and new genes are made.

You say that evolution has little effect on the existence of God, Jesus Christ, etc. But why are Christians so diametrically opposed to it. Some of my ideas of why this is the case is that is shows that Genesis can’t be taken literally. That there was no Adam and Eve. Was there original sin? Billions of years of evil (death, suffering, etc) before humans ever came onto the scene. No more general revelation. Support for a naturalistic worldview. These are just a couple reasons.

3) Being ignorant is not a bad thing. I’m ignorant of a lot of things. But the things I am ignorant about I try to keep my mouth shut and let the experts have the public discussions. When theologian go on and on about Biology, they are bound to look ignorant. One is unlikely to be an expert in all fields. So yes, when many Christian apologetics talk about creationism and ID, they look ignorant. The same as if I went around talking about economics, art, engineering, rocket science, etc.

4) a) TBA, “Similarity and progress do not necessarily prove common ancestry; an alternative explanation is that they have a common Creator who designed them to live in similar environments.”There are so many arguments against this like LTR, LINES and SINES, SNPs, chromosome order and number, pseudogenes, etc. TBA, “Unfortunately, there is no way to reconstruct the genetic structure of bones uncovered.”There is, its called DNA sequencing. Look up how they are sequencing Mammoth and Neanderthal DNA.

TBA, I have a Ph.D. in biology/biochemistry/genetics/etc so your description of the proteins and genetics I’m sorry to say, did sound ignorant. With more and more genomes being sequence there will literally be millions to billions of transitional protein forms. I’m not sure what you talking about “basic types”. It is not true that all organisms share a common genetic code. Please explain what you mean by “molecular isolation”. Nothing of what you said confirms there is no transitional forms.

b) You’re using Lee Strobel as your source. Come on! He has absolutely no science background, and he interviewed no expert in the field. To save space I’ll just refer you to http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC301.html for my rebuttal.

5) Oh, please don’t go there. We should not “teach the controversy”, because there is NO controversy on the basics of evolution. Teaching the controversy is Creationist/IDers loop hole in which to teach religious beliefs. Creationism and ID have absolutely NO place in a science classroom.

TBA, “I believe in considering ALL the evidence and following it wherever it may lead”. I honestly doubt that you have considered “ALL” the evidence. There is so much evidence for evolution that it is literally impossible to consider “ALL” the evidence.

Did your friend go to his professors and ask them about the evidence for what you call macro-evolution? If not, that’s a problem, because he is not considering “ALL” the evidence. What evidence changed him? Please, put him in contact with me so that I can teach him what his Master’s program failed to do. If he banks his faith on the mis-information of ID, he may be subjected to losing his faith when he is finally set straight.

Once again, thank you for the link and the reponse. I'll tell you what, since space is a concern for you, email me at answers@explorefcf.com or you can provide your email address and we will continue this discussion. However, I do want to make a few points:

1) Sources

Let's just consider the evidence provided. Richard Dawkins has no theology background, but he has no problem discussing the New Testament.

2) I didn't say that I didn't believe the OT account of creation; the objections you brought up regarding original sin, etc. would need to be address by Collins and Polkinghorne, not I. However, it's important to remember that if Christainity is true, we will be judged by whether we trusted in Christ and His sacrifice, not whether or not we accept the literal creation account, inspiration of the Bible, or evolution, etc. (Rom. 10:9; 1 Cor 15:1-5).

Finally, I'd be interested to discuss your "Christian doubt" and wonder how much you have studied the historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ?

Assuming the conversation is continued, I will clarify my points in my prior post. Again, this will be the easiest way to not let "space" hinder the discussion.

You can call me Mark. Space is not a real issue. It’s just that I’d rather sometimes just link to a source than copy and past from a source. It’s also easier to give the original author the credit too. I do this because time is precious for me. If you want my e-mail, its in my profile.

To answer you comments.

1) I haven’t read any Dawkins books, but I can imagine he probably comes off ignorant in his discussion of theology. He also has a very aggressive somewhat arrogant style.

2) My point was that I believe why people don’t want to believe the evidence for evolution is that it opens up a pandora’s box of harder questions about Christianity. I’ve only ran across one book that has tried to address some of these questions. But I still think the church hasn’t really spent much time on thinking about these issues. They find it easier to just ignore the evidence.

I agree with you. Salvation is not based on one’s belief in evolution/creation. The problem arises when Christians try to evangelize or teach apologetics. Out of the same mouth they talk about the Truth of the Gospel and then spu out lies about evolution. How is the unbeliever supposed to untangle this mess? And from a personal point of view, when one struggles with doubt, how am I supposed believe what these apologetics say?

I’d be happy to discuss my doubt, but that is a bit off the topic of this blog post. I am a couple of books into studying the historical evidence for the resurrection.